A response to the Thai government

Last week New Mandala received a letter from Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Sek Wannamethee outlining why the government took exception to a recent article published to our website. Here the author of that piece, James L Taylor, responds.

An academic piece such as my recent New Mandala article should not be a threat to anyone, or any democratic institution. It is a viewpoint. Frankly I would not think such intellectual rumination and comment worthy of an official response: but, so be it.

As an educated person, from a reputable institution of learning in the UK, Khun Sek should know the value of a discursus from his master’s classes, and have nothing to be concerned about if these views do not accord with the views of his, or his junta bosses. See also Khun Sek’s response to Pavin Chachavalpongpun in The Japan Times.

But, for those who have a sense of the underlying reality in today’s Thailand, this is more the case of him saying that the pond is clear when it is murky.

Anyone reading my New Mandala contribution has the right to agree or to disagree as long it is supported by a reasoned position. If my argumentation is distasteful, too radical, or deemed to offend the “image” of the regime, may I humbly suggest that what is needed is tolerance to differing views, to reflection instead of a defence of the indefensible.

If the reader feels it is not true, then why should s/he be so concerned? People disagree maybe because they do not like poststructuralism, or understand or agree with the philosophical opining of Deleuze. That’s also fine.

In modern Thai history, a narrative has seemingly been created that masks the truth, and any contra-views to those of the junta silenced, both indirectly and directly. Several people who could have contributed significantly to Thailand’s future have been forced to flee the country, many incarcerated, others with no choice but comply with an imposed normalisation because the alternative carries risks — what Deleuze means by micro-fascism.

This environment must change if the country is to progress harmoniously.

No one should be afraid of expressing their views and opinions, only of living by lies, deceit and misrepresentation. This has created massive divisions in society. If Thailand is to move forward, then the silenced and the voiceless must be allowed a public space.

As a start, the regime should free all political prisoners and show to the world that Thailand is a compassionate and just nation, the “land of the free”. Would the late monarch not want this?

And, of course, Thailand should be a country that ensures a safe space for those people who wish to grieve the loss of the King, though a sentiment nurtured from the heart, not the head.

Dr James L Taylor is Adjunct Associate Professor, Anthropology & Development Studies, University of Adelaide.

10 Responses

I can think of no legitimate reason why SEK WANNAMETHEE should not have responded to Mr Taylor’s article. There are two sides to every story after all, and I think we are all better off for having heard both of them.

Since Taylor seems to uphold the value of reasoned discourse in taking and defending positions, I would ask him to provide some sort of support for his contention that what Deleuze means by micro-fascism is “no choice but to comply with an imposed normalisation because the alternative carries risks”.

Micro-fascism is about desire, the desire of individuals, and not about state imposed norms. It is about blocked lines of flight, failed attempts to escape from the rigidities of capitalism that turn into the demand that others follow “rules” that these frustrated desires create. Micro-fascisms are diverse; fascism is monolithic.

Taylor can’t deal with these elements of Deleuzian analysis because his whole defense of Thaksin and fantasy about what Thaksin’s electoral authoritarianism represents appears to be little more than a perfect example of a blocked line of flight.

And we know where they lead.

I’ve quoted this before in response to Dr Taylor and it remains relevant to his refusal to defend his misuse of Deleuzian terminology:

“It’s too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with molecules both personal and collective.” D&G

michael (sounds like he is chasing me across NM?) likes to divert attention from the core argument and has some pleasure in twisting my logic without reading clearly the underlying argument. you should not take small bites out of D&G without comprehending the whole terrain of their thinking. I have spent many years working with all their individual and collective works in English. your comment on D&G in this context is misleading. I am happy to povide an explanation if you wish to write to me at the university.

Thank you for having the convictions to express what you stated. This foreign ministry spokesperson, as well as Don Pramudvinai, the Thai foreign minister, is only doing the bidding of their new puppet masters, the illegitimate military junta, that seized power from an elected govt. tore up the constitution and is now ruling with no checks and balances, dishing out threats and warnings daily, suppressing the will of the Thai people, silencing anyone who speaks out, while jailing hundreds of innocent Thais who took a stand. It’s a shame that Thailand has fallen this low and the worst is still yet to come, with “Sia O” getting ready to take the throne.

This illegitimate military junta will be remembered as the “worst” of them all. Thailand’s day of reckoning is fast approaching and the majority of hard working Thais, who have been repressed for decades will rise up and take back their country from these so called royalists, elites, sino-thai tycoons, and men in uniform, who are corrupt to the core and have enriched themselves by all means.

Seems like Taylor was unable to offer substantive argument and went for light discourse. Any response would have to include that the definitions of Fascism and Naziism are different and that fitting a person to a theory is easier than thinking. Thais didn’t know their monarch personally and neither does Taylor so one could dismiss any criticism of the king as feeling in the dark.

I feel that Taylor is so emotional when he writes, “If the reader feels it is not true, then why should s/he be so concerned?” in response to Khun Sek Wannamethee’s letter. If it was true, why is he concerned?